On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Fabio Zadrozny wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm currently implementing a parser to handle Python 3.0, and one of >> the points I found conflicting with the grammar specification is the >> PEP 3104. >> >> It says that a shortcut would be added to Python 3.0 so that "nonlocal >> x = 0" can be written. However, the latest grammar specification >> (http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/grammar.html?highlight=full%20grammar) >> doesn't seem to take that into account... So, can someone enlighten me >> on what should be the correct treatment for that on a grammar that >> wants to support Python 3.0? > > An issue was already filed about this: > http://bugs.python.org/issue4199 > It should be ready for inclusion in 3.0.1.
No it should not. It should be put in 3.1. I strongly object against the addition of features of *any* kind to 3.0.1, no matter whether they were promised or announced in a PEP or in the docs or on the 8 o'clock news. This would make 3.0.0 forever a "loser" release. (I find the removal of 'cmp' hard to swallow too, but in a sense the addition of features is worse, as it makes downgrading a risk. Upgrades, no matter how minimal, always represent risks -- however downgrading shouldn't represent risks, unless you happen to depend on a bugfix that wasn't present in the downgrade -- but we're not talking about a bugfix here no matter how you bend the English language.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
